Appeals under CST Act 1965-66, 1966-67 allowed in part; Assessable turnover adjusted; Omissions sustained.

The appeals under the CST Act for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67 were allowed in part. Adjustments were made to the assessable turnover by deleting disputed transactions and assessing certain transactions at 10 percent due to the absence of 'C' declaration forms. The final assessable turnover was determined after these adjustments, resulting in sustained omissions of Rs. 1,44,483 for 1965-66 and Rs. 42,550 for 1966-67.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Assessment under CST Act for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67.
2. Omissions in the assessable turnover.
3. Addition for probable omissions.
4. Transactions under fictitious names.
5. Inter-State sales.
6. Documentary evidence and support.
7. Deletion of disputed turnover.
8. Final assessable turnover.
9. 'C' declaration forms.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment under CST Act for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67:
The appeals T.A. 162/75 and T.A. 187/75 involve assessments under the CST Act for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67 respectively. Both appeals are directed against the common order of AAC (Commercial Taxes)-III in CST A.P. No. 2/71 and 6/72.

2. Omissions in the assessable turnover:
For the year 1965-66, the assessable turnover returned was Rs. 25,678.41, with omissions unearthed to an extent of Rs. 1,67,264. For the year 1966-67, the returned turnover was Rs. 26,463.86, with omissions of Rs. 80,050.

3. Addition for probable omissions:
The authorities added an equivalent amount for probable omissions, fixing the estimated turnover at Rs. 3,60,206.41 for 1965-66 and Rs. 1,86,563.86 for 1966-67. The AAC refixed the assessable turnover at Rs. 1,92,942.41 and Rs. 1,07,513.86 respectively, contesting the addition for probable omissions.

4. Transactions under fictitious names:
The appellants were found to be dealing in electrical goods under fictitious names such as Star Engineering Works, G.K. Corporation, and Genual K. Shah. The Special Dy. CTO's investigation revealed these transactions, supported by forensic evidence and detected letters.

5. Inter-State sales:
The counsel argued that even if the transactions under fictitious names were considered, there were no inter-State sales. The State Representative presented detailed evidence of inter-State trade under fictitious names, including corroborative documents and bank transfers.

6. Documentary evidence and support:
The State Representative provided extensive evidence, including handwriting analysis, railway records, and comparisons of photostat copies. The counsel acknowledged the lack of documentary support and did not press the count regarding fictitious names.

7. Deletion of disputed turnover:
The Tribunal found that certain transactions where the goods were delivered by the seller himself or booked as 'self' could not be treated as inter-State sales. These transactions, amounting to Rs. 15,400 for 1966-67 and Rs. 22,100 for 1965-66, were deleted from the disputed turnover.

8. Final assessable turnover:
The final assessable turnover was determined after deleting the disputed amounts. For 1965-66, the resultant omissions sustained were Rs. 1,44,483, and for 1966-67, Rs. 42,550.

9. 'C' declaration forms:
The counsel was unable to present any 'C' declaration forms for the disputed dealings, leading to the assessment of these transactions at 10 percent.

Conclusion:
Both appeals were allowed in part, with adjustments made to the assessable turnover based on the deletion of certain disputed transactions and the lack of 'C' declaration forms.

---